Re: space between electrons and nuclei
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:31:00 -0700
Dear vic:
"vic" <je93je@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121513566.596500.234330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear vic:
>>
>> "vic" <je93je@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1121453460.387040.83150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > what kind of "thing" is between electrons and nuclei
>>
>> The electron is everywhere in its orbital, so there is
>> nothing "between" the electron and the nucleus.
>> Or if you like "charge" is between the electron and
>> the nucleus.
>
> which is of course absolutely fokin wrong
Which of the four or so statements is wrong, vic?
1) the electron is everywhere
2) there is nothing between the electron and the nucleus
3) that you might have an opinion on this subject
4) that the E field intensity of both the electrons and protons
varies over the volume in question
> a lie crap repetead so many times that it becames
> a "de facto" "truth"
An empty statement.
> the observations shows namely, that the electrons are
> _not_ there when "they" are looking after them
Translation into English? An atom has no net charge in its
ground state. The electron is obviously there. The atom has no
net magnetic field, so the electron isn't in a Bohr orbital. So
what do you mean?
> then the tuff guys says - well, if they are not there,
> then they should be some other places all around
>
> which is a fokin very subjective
>
> anyway, if they are considered as "particles", there
> should be a huge gap, or distance, inbetween the
> nuclei and their electrons
Not at all. "Huge distance" is a classical mechanics concept,
and atoms are decidedly quantum. Look up the diagrams of the s,
p, d and higher orbitals. These orbitals *include* the nucleus
in their domain.
> then the question raises again, what kind of "thing"
> is in betwwen them
Nothing. Distance is a macroscopic illusion.
If I asked you what your median age was, does that have a
meaningful answer distinct from your actual age?
>> > "empty space" cant be, becus it should have vakum
>> > properties
>>
>> Who says it doesn't have vacuum properties?
>
> can you send an undistorsed EM wave through it?
Yes. In fact they pass gamma through it all the time. Something
in excess of 5 MeV gamma will activate antimony, and it will
become unstable and decay. For that matter (since you are into
"I hate everybody mode") virtual photons are exchanged between
the electrons and the nucleus all the time.
> no? then how could it so be vakum?
Yes. It isn't.
> it is not vacuum, try somthin else
It is nothing. Not vacuum, not distance.
Have some more guacamole. Cut down a little on the marguritas.
David A. Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: space between electrons and nuclei
- From: vic
- Re: space between electrons and nuclei
- References:
- space between electrons and nuclei
- From: vic
- Re: space between electrons and nuclei
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: space between electrons and nuclei
- From: vic
- space between electrons and nuclei
- Prev by Date: Re: Question about light clock and derivation of time dilation
- Next by Date: Re: Inside a black hole
- Previous by thread: Re: space between electrons and nuclei
- Next by thread: Re: space between electrons and nuclei
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
